In Uganda, bill challenges press freedom

On March 24, I received an e-mail from a close friend under the
intriguing subject “What...?” On opening the e-mail, I discovered my friend was
not impressed by two articles
in that morning’s newspapers
condemning the government’s recent proposal to amend the press law and
introduce new restrictions on the publication of newspapers.

“What is
all the drama journalists are acting out in the papers about the proposed
amendments to Wawawa Bill?” my friend
wrote in the email. Wawawa is slang
for journalists at my social club.

He went
on to ask me what was wrong with an amendment that would involve:

1.) Annual
licensing

2.) Restrictions
on foreign ownership

3.) Strengthening
of disciplinary procedures

4.) Empowering
the Media Council power to close media houses.

“By the
way, these things are par for the course in the business world,” he added in
the e-mail. I was busy that morning, so I wrote but a
quick note to my friend: “I guess the premise is that ‘the media are not like any other business.”

I have no problems with some restrictions on foreign ownership. Similarly,
licensing would not be terrible as long as it is not used unduly to restrict freedom
of expression. Uganda is a signatory
to several regional and international
declarations and protocols that are very clear on how licensing and
regulation of the media should proceed. The regulator, for one, should
be independent.

Below are some specific comments on what I consider problematic provisions. Fortunately,
I am told the Minister of Information said at a recent media conference that
these were still proposals that could be subject to change.

The proposed requirement that newspapers obtain annual
licenses, which can be revoked by the Media Council (read the
government), is very dangerous, especially when looked at in the context of
other provisions that create and criminalize publication offenses. The Media
Council could easily revoke or refuse to renew the license of a newspaper
accused of committing the new publication offenses the bill creates. And this could be done even before a
competent court pronounces itself on whether the newspaper in fact committed
those offences. This is what happened to the Central
Broadcasting Service, or CBS. The Broadcasting Council (the government, really)
accused, prosecuted, and found the
station guilty.

What
makes this bill even more dangerous is a proposal to have information the
minister effectively appointing the chairman of the Media Council. If adopted,
this would further erode the independence of the regulator. Currently, the
members of the Media Council elect a chairperson from among themselves. But
even then, the way the council is constituted makes it easy for the minister to
interfere with its independence. The proposed amendment does not address this.
Instead, it worsens what is already a bad situation. It is wrong to grant such
powers (to revoke the license of a newspaper) to a regulatory body whose
independence cannot be guaranteed.

Also, some of the proposed licensing conditions ( “proof
of existence of adequate technical facilities,” for example) are concerning. It
appears that the government is worried that under the current law anybody can
easily start a newspaper. But this is the very essence of freedom—to
impart information. Obviously this has implications on the quality of journalism.
But it is necessary in the interest of media pluralism and diversity. The
enjoyment of free expression, in this case the freedom to impart and
disseminate information, can't be the preserve of only those who have “access
to modern technical facilities” or those with the "right social, cultural,
and economic values." And who determines these values, anyway?

The proposed prohibition of the publication of “information
injurious to national security, stability, and unity, to Uganda's relationship
with neighbors, and to the economy,” as well as the proposal to criminalize
such publications is very dangerous as such provisions would be subject to
subjective interpretation. What constitutes injury to national security? Who
defines injury to national security? And who defines “economic sabotage?”

The notion of irresponsible journalism, which the
government says it is trying to address, is quite loaded. The government often
invokes it to refer to journalism that makes those in power uncomfortable
either because it is too critical or because it challenges their authority. But
we can agree on what constitutes irresponsible journalism. Inciting people to
ethnic hatred and genocide, for instance, does not have constitutional
protection in many jurisdictions. But the problem in Uganda and many parts of
Africa is that the government wants to proscribe legitimate expression under
the guise of protecting the public interest, when in fact it is protecting its
own interests.

Press freedom and free expression facilitate the
enjoyment of other rights enshrined in the constitution. This is not simply
about media organizations and journalists. It is about every citizen. The
Constitution gives all of us the right to freedom of speech and expression. The
Constitution is also clear that limitations to these freedoms must be
acceptable and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. The
limitations to freedom of expression that the government is proposing are
neither acceptable not justifiable in a free and democratic society.

Dr.
Peter G. Mwesige is the executive director of the African Centre for Media Excellence. He is
also a member of the governing board of the Independent Media Council of
Uganda. He has previously worked as head of the Mass Communication Department
at Makerere University, executive editor of the Daily Monitor in Kampala, and
most recently as training editor of the Nairobi-based Nation Media Group.

Comments

Kudos to CPJ for bringing the attention of the world to this wretched "Bill". One can not say it better than Mr. Mwesige's comment above.
One has to keep in mind that Uganda is basically a military dictatorship masquerading as a democracy! The context of this Bill is that the government of Uganda (NRM)led by President Museveni faces an election in 2011. It is trying to control ALL opposition by all means necessary. Let me rephrase that to say that in this case it wishes to make sure it is only the message of the NRM that gets out. This is one of the means by which it will prevent the message of the opposition parties from being heard.

Already it has reporters and media who do present a balanced truthful version of issues tied up in court, or shut down. All reporters in Uganda who work for independent papers or media fear arrest, interrogation(techniques of which can be quite brutal), or the shut down of their media.

Basic freedoms are an illusion in Uganda, especially in this run-up year to the elections.

Dear Martha: thank you for your interest. CPJ's Nairobi-based East Africa Consultant Tom Rhodes took part in a joint advocacy mission to Uganda last month to discuss the proposed press bill. It is not yet on the parliamentary agenda and is pending a constitutional review by Uganda's Attorney General. We are closely monitoring developments.